14 ARGUMENT 01' GREAT BRITAIN. 



This is the more essential, as the United States diplo- 

 matic correspondence, and other documents in whicli the 

 United States claim is advocated, do not keep the points 

 clear, but move imperceptibly from one standpoint to 

 another. 



13 The points to which the argument of the United 

 States is directed are these: 



1. That Kussia claimed and exercised the jurisdiction in 

 Behring" Sea now asserted, and ceded it to the United States, 

 and that, therefore, the United States are entitled to exer- 

 cise it in virtue of the Treaty of Cession of 1867. 



2. That the United States have the like jurisdiction over 

 Behring Sea in virtue of their own possessions, and in their 

 own right of dominion. 



3. That the United States have jurisdiction over the east- 

 ern portion of Behring Sea as part of their territorial waters. 



4. That the United States have jurisdiction for the pro- 

 tection of the fur-seal in virtue of an alleged right of nations 

 to exercise similar jurisdiction on the high sea, apart from 

 any dominion or special jurisdiction over Behring Sea. 



5. That the United States have a property in the seals 

 on account of their breeding and temporary residence on 

 the PribyloiJ's, and a right to follow such seals and protect 

 them in the high sea, apart from any dominion or sx)ecial 

 jurisdiction. 



6. That the United States have such right of protection 

 apart from any right of property. 



Of these six claims, it is submitted that the last three, 

 so far as they assert a jurisdiction extending beyond Beh- 

 ring Sea, or th(^ eastern i)ortion thereof, are not included 

 in tlie reference to this Tribunal made by the Treaty of 

 Arbitration. 



DIVISION OF ARGUMENT. 



The following Argument is thus divided : 

 In Part I the grounds are set forth on which Great Britain 

 claims that all the questions arising under the first four 

 questions propounded in the Vlth Article of the Treaty of 

 Arbitration should be decided in favour of Great Britain. 



In Part II the United States claim of right of protection 

 or projjcrty in fur-seals is considered, and the grounds are 

 set forth on which Great Britain claims that the fifth ques- 

 tion pro]K)unded should be decided in her favour. 



14 In Part III the question of regulations is dis- 

 cussed; and 



In Part IV the claims of Great Britain and of the United 

 States respectively for damages are considered. 



